Todd Ingram said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

kelly09 said:

---

Aunbear, if nothing else, is consistent. Excessively nasty. She never adds civility to any issue.

---

So much ****ing litter from that idiot who has never added a single substantive post. I have him on ignore but his stupidity still shows up when quoted. It is mind blowing how someone that vapid got into UC Berkeley. Please someone point me to one intelligent, insightful post he has ever made. Please.

---

How did I get into UC Berkeley. Well, right out of HS in 1960. To your point, my vapidity along with being overwhelmed by the Cal experience led me to flunking out. My GPA was less than 1.0 after three semesters.

Fooled around for a while and got drafted into the US Army. Hated it but got some direction. Out in 64'. Three years at CCSF and working full time. I had a 4.0 after taking 52 units and was readmitted. Sorry that you think I'm an idiot. As for Aunbear, I believed him to be a woman. I apologize to women everywhere. And Cal 93, go eff yourself.

BTW 1968 was a big year for *****s like you and Aunbear on campus. So was 69'.

---

You flunking out of Cal is one of the least surprising things ever. You are a very stupid person, as evidenced by the fact that you thought calbear93 was talking about you above instead of AunBear89.

Deep down in your heart, you know you are stupid. You know you are vapid. You know that you have to be told what to believe because you are too stupid to think for yourself. You know that someone else is to blame for your sorry state and that someone is whoever the right-wing blogs that form all of your thoughts tell you to be angry at. You know that deep in your heart, you are not who you wanted to be and you think it's someone else's fault. But it's your own fault that you are so stupid.

---

I get it! Aunbear really is a man. Hi Todd. BTW...is anyone exactly who'd they want to be? I sincerely hope you wouldn't apply that to yourself..

"Crime is Surging in U.S. Cities" ohkay, if you say so, aaand in the amply compensated aka bribed congress and great again WhiteHouse # known bugs

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

You can talk about it theoretically though. Like, in theory it would be good to have an era of one kind of liberalism and then one of a complementary kind of conservatism as Jeff describes.

But yes, in America in practice we now have a "conservative" party that refuses to advance the ball at all, and then a "liberal" party that is kind of trying to do both things at once and is less effective than they should be as a result.

---

Interesting that someone who thinks his great accomplishment is posting on a football board thinks that one is what one does. Oh, the joke in that comment.

But moving on to Sycasey, a more liberal but actual believer, I disagree that the liberal movement is trying to move the ball in anything other than social battles.

---

The Affordable Care Act was definitely not just moving the ball on social issues. Was it perfect? Was it enough? Probably not. But I don't think you can argue against the attempt.

Republicans fought it tooth and nail and thus far have not offered up anything to fix it. Sure, they talked a good game about "repeal and replace" but when it came time to actually vote on something the latter part of that slogan was missing. So yeah, I think my description is accurate.

---

OK, that's a fair example, and I would have supported a more comprehensive coverage, either a public option or a single payer system since I don't view basic healthcare as a luxury for the rich, while proving a private option for beyond the basic.

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

As for social wars, as I mentioned, most Americans want decent, moderate social policies and do not want significant changes. The extremes who don't care about others but their special interest groups are the ones who promote division, and I honestly am sick and tired of the social wars fought between the extremes on both sides.

---

I've been trying my best to distinguish between current GOP orthodoxy and conservatives such as yourself, because I get the sense that there are at least some issues on which you would agree generally with the direction that Democrats have tried to go. For instance, you just indicated that you would support a public option or single payer system when it comes to healthcare, presumably because you think that is in the best long-term interests of the country. But while conservative fiscal policy is fine in as a concept, it does heighten the importance of scrutinizing exactly what we are spending our money on, and on that front, I would argue that Republican priorities as a whole have not matched up with national long-term interests, especially when you consider how the theoretical savings have then been zeroed out or overtaken by tax cuts or increased spending elsewhere.

Regarding social wars, I suspect based on your past statements that you are talking about rhetoric directed at the so-called 1% and large company CEOs? Because I'd be surprised if you're referring to any number of more recent hot-button social policy issues such as police brutality/BLM, transgender rights, or gay marriage.

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

You can talk about it theoretically though. Like, in theory it would be good to have an era of one kind of liberalism and then one of a complementary kind of conservatism as Jeff describes.

But yes, in America in practice we now have a "conservative" party that refuses to advance the ball at all, and then a "liberal" party that is kind of trying to do both things at once and is less effective than they should be as a result.

---

Interesting that someone who thinks his great accomplishment is posting on a football board thinks that one is what one does. Oh, the joke in that comment.

But moving on to Sycasey, a more liberal but actual believer, I disagree that the liberal movement is trying to move the ball in anything other than social battles.

---

The Affordable Care Act was definitely not just moving the ball on social issues. Was it perfect? Was it enough? Probably not. But I don't think you can argue against the attempt.

Republicans fought it tooth and nail and thus far have not offered up anything to fix it. Sure, they talked a good game about "repeal and replace" but when it came time to actually vote on something the latter part of that slogan was missing. So yeah, I think my description is accurate.

---

OK, that's a fair example, and I would have supported a more comprehensive coverage, either a public option or a single payer system since I don't view basic healthcare as a luxury for the rich, while proving a private option for beyond the basic.

---

That is also what I would prefer, but again . . . it's not the liberals in this country who are blocking that.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

You can talk about it theoretically though. Like, in theory it would be good to have an era of one kind of liberalism and then one of a complementary kind of conservatism as Jeff describes.

But yes, in America in practice we now have a "conservative" party that refuses to advance the ball at all, and then a "liberal" party that is kind of trying to do both things at once and is less effective than they should be as a result.

---

Interesting that someone who thinks his great accomplishment is posting on a football board thinks that one is what one does. Oh, the joke in that comment.

But moving on to Sycasey, a more liberal but actual believer, I disagree that the liberal movement is trying to move the ball in anything other than social battles.

---

The Affordable Care Act was definitely not just moving the ball on social issues. Was it perfect? Was it enough? Probably not. But I don't think you can argue against the attempt.

Republicans fought it tooth and nail and thus far have not offered up anything to fix it. Sure, they talked a good game about "repeal and replace" but when it came time to actually vote on something the latter part of that slogan was missing. So yeah, I think my description is accurate.

---

OK, that's a fair example, and I would have supported a more comprehensive coverage, either a public option or a single payer system since I don't view basic healthcare as a luxury for the rich, while proving a private option for beyond the basic.

---

That is also what I would prefer, but again . . . it's not the liberals in this country who are blocking that.

---

Agree. As I mentioned before, I disagree with the Republicans on their position on healthcare.

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

As for social wars, as I mentioned, most Americans want decent, moderate social policies and do not want significant changes. The extremes who don't care about others but their special interest groups are the ones who promote division, and I honestly am sick and tired of the social wars fought between the extremes on both sides.

---

I've been trying my best to distinguish between current GOP orthodoxy and conservatives such as yourself, because I get the sense that there are at least some issues on which you would agree generally with the direction that Democrats have tried to go. For instance, you just indicated that you would support a public option or single payer system when it comes to healthcare, presumably because you think that is in the best long-term interests of the country. But while conservative fiscal policy is fine in as a concept, it does heighten the importance of scrutinizing exactly what we are spending our money on, and on that front, I would argue that Republican priorities as a whole have not matched up with national long-term interests, especially when you consider how the theoretical savings have then been zeroed out or overtaken by tax cuts or increased spending elsewhere.

Regarding social wars, I suspect based on your past statements that you are talking about rhetoric directed at the so-called 1% and large company CEOs? Because I'd be surprised if you're referring to any number of more recent hot-button social policy issues such as police brutality/BLM, transgender rights, or gay marriage.

---

Yes. I am probably more liberal on social issues than most. And, while a Christian and pro-lifer, I think one of the worst things we did was insert ourselves in the political realm or ally with the Republican party. I understand why we did it since the Democratic party were so openly hostile to Christianity, but it was putting politics above God. I wish both parties would keep religion out of it, but both parties are just as guilty.

For example, I am fervently in favor of gay marriages, and was disappointed by Obama's initial refusal to support it. However, I am fully in support of those who do not want to partake in the ceremony for religious reasons. Just be decent to each other, and leave people the hell alone.

Same with transgender rights. However, when there is some ridiculously stupid takes such as allowing transgender athletes to compete with women or allowing non-unisex bathrooms to be used, then it's nonsense and inconsistent. Just make all bathrooms unisex and just make all sporting events co-ed. If you are going to differentiate, have it make sense and be consistent with the reason you are continuing to separate.

On BLM/brutality, of course I am in favor of police reform. It is when it is taken to the extreme, such as disbanding or defunding the police or excusing looting of small businesses, then I do get upset because I think that is wrong for the country. And I think it is stupid for the leaders of BLM to pollute the core message with argument for Marxism or bigotry against the Jewish community (or any other community).

So, I am more center left on most issues, but hate the stupidity of how these arguments go and how sanctimonious these cancel culture activist who think they are shielded because they tweet and promote ruining someone's life for a mistake pisses me off.

On the fiscal policy issue, it is a question of balancing what is the basic necessity of survival and what we should collectively (not just someone richer than me) fund (not borrow) as a nation to ensure that the basics are not deprived to anyone. I view food, basic housing, healthcare, rescue when there is a fire or a crime, and protection from undue foreign hostility or foreign action that destabilizes US or our allies as basic requirements. Beyond that, I think there should be a compelling argument for why something is a basic necessity and why I should fund it for someone else.

dajo9 said:

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

Conservatism does not mean huge fiscal deficits.

You continue to put your stupidity on display when you say stupid shyt like this.

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

You can talk about it theoretically though. Like, in theory it would be good to have an era of one kind of liberalism and then one of a complementary kind of conservatism as Jeff describes.

But yes, in America in practice we now have a "conservative" party that refuses to advance the ball at all, and then a "liberal" party that is kind of trying to do both things at once and is less effective than they should be as a result.

---

Yep that's pretty much the point I've been trying to make. The Democrats have been stuck in a cycle for many years now trying to compromise with Republicans to move things forward and end up pleasing no one. As a result, you get a subset of progressive voters who then fault the Democrats for not getting enough done or even snowball into saying that Democrats = Republicans. That just strains credulity in my opinion.

To dajo9, I actually agree with your overall sentiment. But for purposes of discussion, I think it's also fair to hold back on so irrevocably tying all conservatives with the actions of their national leaders. I don't agree with many of the political positions of calbear93 but I can recognize that he's also not off the reservation the way the national GOP and several conservative members of this board are. Personally, the only one of those presidential candidates I can truly fault a conservative for voting for is Trump (and maybe Romney as well given what we already knew by 2012 of national Republican fiscal policy).

Todd Ingram said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

Conservatism does not mean huge fiscal deficits.

You continue to put your stupidity on display when you say stupid shyt like this.

---

Which conservative President in our lifetime lowered the deficit?

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

As for social wars, as I mentioned, most Americans want decent, moderate social policies and do not want significant changes. The extremes who don't care about others but their special interest groups are the ones who promote division, and I honestly am sick and tired of the social wars fought between the extremes on both sides.

---

I've been trying my best to distinguish between current GOP orthodoxy and conservatives such as yourself, because I get the sense that there are at least some issues on which you would agree generally with the direction that Democrats have tried to go. For instance, you just indicated that you would support a public option or single payer system when it comes to healthcare, presumably because you think that is in the best long-term interests of the country. But while conservative fiscal policy is fine in as a concept, it does heighten the importance of scrutinizing exactly what we are spending our money on, and on that front, I would argue that Republican priorities as a whole have not matched up with national long-term interests, especially when you consider how the theoretical savings have then been zeroed out or overtaken by tax cuts or increased spending elsewhere.

Regarding social wars, I suspect based on your past statements that you are talking about rhetoric directed at the so-called 1% and large company CEOs? Because I'd be surprised if you're referring to any number of more recent hot-button social policy issues such as police brutality/BLM, transgender rights, or gay marriage.

---

Yes. I am probably more liberal on social issues than most. And, while a Christian and pro-lifer, I think one of the worst things we did was insert ourselves in the political realm or ally with the Republican party. I understand why we did it since the Democratic party were so openly hostile to Christianity, but it was putting politics above God. I wish both parties would keep religion out of it, but both parties are just as guilty.

For example, I am fervently in favor of gay marriages, and was disappointed by Obama's initial refusal to support it. However, I am fully in support of those who do not want to partake in the ceremony for religious reasons. Just be decent to each other, and leave people the hell alone.

Same with transgender rights. However, when there is some ridiculously stupid takes such as allowing transgender athletes to compete with women or allowing non-unisex bathrooms to be used, then it's nonsense and inconsistent. Just make all bathrooms unisex and just make all sporting events co-ed. If you are going to differentiate, have it make sense and be consistent with the reason you are continuing to separate.

On BLM/brutality, of course I am in favor of police reform. It is when it is taken to the extreme, such as disbanding or defunding the police or excusing looting of small businesses, then I do get upset because I think that is wrong for the country. And I think it is stupid for the leaders of BLM to pollute the core message with argument for Marxism or bigotry against the Jewish community (or any other community).

So, I am more center left on most issues, but hate the stupidity of how these arguments go and how sanctimonious these cancel culture activist who think they are shielded because they tweet and promote ruining someone's life for a mistake pisses me off.

---

One thing I've always wanted to challenge you on is your continued assertion that the Democratic party is openly hostile to Christianity. To my knowledge, no major Democratic figure has ever really come out saying they are against Christianity or Christian practices. You might infer from general Democratic resistance to imposing Christian principles on non-Christians but I think it's a step too far to say Democrats are "openly hostile."

Otherwise, while I think you are over-extrapolating a bit from the loudest voices when it comes to the several issues you mention, I can understand your position and suspect that yours is reflective of a large proportion of people in this country as well. Your statement on BLM leaders polluting their core message is galling to me as well, and the trigger-happy nature of cancel-culture activists is an unwelcome distraction from actual efforts to bring to light systemic and sub-conscious racism and sexism.

Couple of things. I am not exaggerating the hostility. Would you say the same thing if someone wrote about a Jewish person giving a blowjob before going to a temple and using terms like nutting, etc and having people star that post ? Well, that is what Dajo did (and the moderators had to delete and lock) and everyone here who is a Democrat thought that was OK or worthy of a star. How about if someone put stereotypical and bigoted caricature of someone Jewish or Muslim? How would you expect that to be handled here? That is typical of the liberals' treatment of Christianity. And no one liberal thinks twice about it. And so you saying I am exaggerating is like some conservative white posters saying the black community is exaggerating racism faced by blacks. Hard to take you seriously on this.

And I do find offensive that you view me as an acceptable conservative unlike other conservatives here. Why are the fellow conservative posters not acceptable but people like Aunbear, Calpoly and Dajo acceptable?

So, while we will continue to be civil, we are both very biased to our own preconceptions, and we will not convince each other when we start our arguments assuming as truth our biased opinions.

dajo9 said:

---

Todd Ingram said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

Conservatism does not mean huge fiscal deficits.

You continue to put your stupidity on display when you say stupid shyt like this.

---

Which conservative President in our lifetime lowered the deficit?

---

Do you even understand how the budget is passed? Do you know anything at all about the world you live in?

JeffBear07 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

---

I think his argument is less that conservative fiscal policy is against the long-term interest of the country and more that current Republican Party policy is against it (which, as you note, is often not very fiscally conservative).

---

I honestly don't know what the current Republican Party's purpose is other than to shelter Trump from his own idiocy. I am talking about at least the platform of the Republican party in more recent history, irrespective of whether they have been carrying those out.

---

Sycasey has me correct, though I would also argue that at least some of the building blocks for the current Republican party started coming into being around the time of Gingrich in the 90's. That doesn't mean individual conservatives such as yourself changed your underlying principles, but the Republican party itself was already starting to move away from pure conservative policy well before Trump.

Personally, I actually think that we need both "liberal" and "conservative" policy as part of a revolving cycle. Liberals, such as you might call them, usher in changes to the social or economic order based on new understanding of how they affect people's lives. Conservatives, such as you might call them, then act as a control on more progressive policies from overwhelming the average person (because the average person is naturally hesitant when it comes to any substantive change no matter its benefits) while allowing that average person to adjust and become self-sustaining within the new societal paradigm. Both parts have their value in a smooth-functioning society. The problem, of course, with the current Republican and conservative movement is that they've given up any semblance of applying conservatism for the common good, relying on fear and emotions to get their way instead of grounded and data-based policy proposals. Bringing this back to the topic of this thread, I feel we are seeing that same reliance on fear and emotions to warp impressions of the supposed crime wave in the U.S. and specifically at the protests that have been going on since George Floyd.

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

You can talk about it theoretically though. Like, in theory it would be good to have an era of one kind of liberalism and then one of a complementary kind of conservatism as Jeff describes.

But yes, in America in practice we now have a "conservative" party that refuses to advance the ball at all, and then a "liberal" party that is kind of trying to do both things at once and is less effective than they should be as a result.

---

Yep that's pretty much the point I've been trying to make. The Democrats have been stuck in a cycle for many years now trying to compromise with Republicans to move things forward and end up pleasing no one. As a result, you get a subset of progressive voters who then fault the Democrats for not getting enough done or even snowball into saying that Democrats = Republicans. That just strains credulity in my opinion.

To dajo9, I actually agree with your overall sentiment. But for purposes of discussion, I think it's also fair to hold back on so irrevocably tying all conservatives with the actions of their national leaders. I don't agree with many of the political positions of calbear93 but I can recognize that he's also not off the reservation the way the national GOP and several conservative members of this board are. Personally, the only one of those presidential candidates I can truly fault a conservative for voting for is Trump (and maybe Romney as well given what we already knew by 2012 of national Republican fiscal policy).

---

I completely agree that calbear93 and the other Republican Presidents (candidates) I mentioned before Trump are not "off the reservation". Trump is a threat to the Republic. Calbear93 (and wifeisafurd) are among the 5% - 10% of the voting public that actually believes in what the establishment Republicans had to offer and, to their credit, refuse to support Trump in 2020. I value their support in 2020 because defeating Trump is that important to the country. But they are men without a political party because of all the bs establishment Republicans fed us, including what it means to be fiscally conservative.

Todd Ingram said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Todd Ingram said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

Conservatism does not mean huge fiscal deficits.

You continue to put your stupidity on display when you say stupid shyt like this.

---

Which conservative President in our lifetime lowered the deficit?

---

Do you even understand how the budget is passed? Do you know anything at all about the world you live in?

---

Ok, explain to me why deficits exploded during the Reagan, GWB, and Trump Presidencies and why they have no personal responsibility for them.

calbear93 said:

---

Couple of things. I am not exaggerating the hostility. Would you say the same thing if someone wrote about a Jewish person giving a blowjob before going to a temple and using terms like nutting, etc and having people star that post as OK? Well, that is what Dajo did (and the moderators has to delete and lock) and everyone here who is a Democrat thought that was OK. How about if someone put stereotypical and bigoted caricature of someone Jewish or Muslim? Would you expect that to be handled here? That is typical of the liberals. And no one thinks twice about it. And so you saying I am exaggerating is like some conservative white posters saying the black community is exaggerating racism faced by blacks. Hard to take you seriously on this.

And I do find offensive that you view me as an acceptable conservative unlike other conservatives here. Why are the fellow conservative posters not acceptable but tools like Aunbear, Calpoly and Dajoe acceptable? Why are you not sayings out and I are not off the reservation like many others here?

So, while we will continue to be civil, yes, we are both very biased to our own preconceptions.

---

I think I've known Jewish people who have given blowjobs before going to Temple. Not a big deal in my book.

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Couple of things. I am not exaggerating the hostility. Would you say the same thing if someone wrote about a Jewish person giving a blowjob before going to a temple and using terms like nutting, etc and having people star that post as OK? Well, that is what Dajo did (and the moderators has to delete and lock) and everyone here who is a Democrat thought that was OK. How about if someone put stereotypical and bigoted caricature of someone Jewish or Muslim? Would you expect that to be handled here? That is typical of the liberals. And no one thinks twice about it. And so you saying I am exaggerating is like some conservative white posters saying the black community is exaggerating racism faced by blacks. Hard to take you seriously on this.

And I do find offensive that you view me as an acceptable conservative unlike other conservatives here. Why are the fellow conservative posters not acceptable but tools like Aunbear, Calpoly and Dajoe acceptable? Why are you not sayings out and I are not off the reservation like many others here?

So, while we will continue to be civil, yes, we are both very biased to our own preconceptions.

---

Not sure where to begin here. I've never spoken up against individual slurs by anyone here and you likely won't see me do so anytime in the near future. Part of that is because until very recently, I've been perfectly content over the years to merely read the discussions here. Another part of that is that I make use of the 'Ignore' feature when I find someone particularly objectionable. Call it apathy, call it cowardice, call it whatever you want, but I am more than happy to let the board regulars be the ones to take out the trash when appropriate.

Irrespective of my explanation above, I'm left to wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I was challenging your specific, oft-repeated statement that Democrats are "openly hostile" to Christianity. Not a single part of your response addressed that query; in fact, you didn't mention Christianity even a single time, instead seguing into a discussion of Jewish and Muslim slurs?

Regarding your offense at me apparently referring to you as an "acceptable conservative," I apologize if that came off patronizing. If anything, I was attempting to highlight why I've engaged repeatedly in discussion with you despite my proclivity to lurk this board otherwise. But even assuming your premise for just a second, those posters you named have absolutely nothing on several of the most prolific conservative posters here except for personal animus with you. Sounds like you might feel differently, but posting stupid picture memes from the far-right depths of the internet, citing to blatantly far-right websites, and openly trolling with knowingly false and inflammatory far-right statements is not something you can simply replace with "far-left" and be an accurate depiction of any single other poster here. I suspect many here would know within one or two guesses exactly whom I am talking about as well. As I've already said, I consider you multiple levels above them, but if you wish to group yourself with them and close off this discussion, then I am sorry to hear that and will drop things here.

---

I definitely am not accusing you of using any of the slurs. What I am suggesting is that the open hostility here against Christianity by the liberal posters, with tacit or open approval of the other liberal posters represent the general acceptance by the left on hostility toward Christians when such behavior against any other religious group would not be tolerated. So, yes, as reflected by the hostility here, the liberal party is definitely biased against Christians. And just like some white people have unconscious bias or may not be observant of racist behavior, you may not have noticed all of the hostility toward Christians or been offended by it (again, Dajo insulting Christians by saying Christian preachers like to get a blow job from gay men in an alley before Bible study or all of the mocking of our faith with stereotypical caricatures of Christians). So, your argument that you think it is exaggerated is as convincing to me as someone black would be convinced by a white person saying they don't think racism is that bad.

And the way you view the offensive liberal posters relative to the conservative posters you view as unacceptable shows how our political leanings influence how we view what should be objectively true. Do you not see the ridiculous internet memes from the left posters? How about the knee jerk "MAGAt", "snowflake" as the entirety of response to anything that does not correspond to the left platform? How about one of the posters I mentioned multiple times stating that the conservative posters like me were sexually abused as children, suggesting that being a victim of pedophilia is an insult? I honestly have not seen anything that despicable from any of the conservative posters. And so, if it is a choice between associating with those who make homophobic jokes and use being sexually abused as a minor as an insult while throwing out "MAGAt", RWNJ" etc as the only type of posts they make and associating with those who post conservative memes, I will choose the latter. Even though Bearister, B.A., and others mostly post memes, I don't consider them trolls for doing so. But I would love to hear about any of those conservative posters saying some of the vile things AunBear and others have written and have the posters here star those posts, and I will join you in rebuking them. The only person who even comes close is that idiot Bancroft poster that I have multiple times called out.

Well, now you are just a liar, making stuff up to fit your snowflake narrative. Poor oppressed Christian, white male. Haven't you and your people suffered long enough. Sniff.

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Couple of things. I am not exaggerating the hostility. Would you say the same thing if someone wrote about a Jewish person giving a blowjob before going to a temple and using terms like nutting, etc and having people star that post as OK? Well, that is what Dajo did (and the moderators has to delete and lock) and everyone here who is a Democrat thought that was OK. How about if someone put stereotypical and bigoted caricature of someone Jewish or Muslim? Would you expect that to be handled here? That is typical of the liberals. And no one thinks twice about it. And so you saying I am exaggerating is like some conservative white posters saying the black community is exaggerating racism faced by blacks. Hard to take you seriously on this.

And I do find offensive that you view me as an acceptable conservative unlike other conservatives here. Why are the fellow conservative posters not acceptable but tools like Aunbear, Calpoly and Dajoe acceptable? Why are you not sayings out and I are not off the reservation like many others here?

So, while we will continue to be civil, yes, we are both very biased to our own preconceptions.

---

Not sure where to begin here. I've never spoken up against individual slurs by anyone here and you likely won't see me do so anytime in the near future. Part of that is because until very recently, I've been perfectly content over the years to merely read the discussions here. Another part of that is that I make use of the 'Ignore' feature when I find someone particularly objectionable. Call it apathy, call it cowardice, call it whatever you want, but I am more than happy to let the board regulars be the ones to take out the trash when appropriate.

Irrespective of my explanation above, I'm left to wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I was challenging your specific, oft-repeated statement that Democrats are "openly hostile" to Christianity. Not a single part of your response addressed that query; in fact, you didn't mention Christianity even a single time, instead seguing into a discussion of Jewish and Muslim slurs?

Regarding your offense at me apparently referring to you as an "acceptable conservative," I apologize if that came off patronizing. If anything, I was attempting to highlight why I've engaged repeatedly in discussion with you despite my proclivity to lurk this board otherwise. But even assuming your premise for just a second, those posters you named have absolutely nothing on several of the most prolific conservative posters here except for personal animus with you. Sounds like you might feel differently, but posting stupid picture memes from the far-right depths of the internet, citing to blatantly far-right websites, and openly trolling with knowingly false and inflammatory far-right statements is not something you can simply replace with "far-left" and be an accurate depiction of any single other poster here. I suspect many here would know within one or two guesses exactly whom I am talking about as well. As I've already said, I consider you multiple levels above them, but if you wish to group yourself with them and close off this discussion, then I am sorry to hear that and will drop things here.

---

I definitely am not accusing you of using any of the slurs. What I am suggesting is that the open hostility here against Christianity by the liberal posters, with tacit or open approval of the other liberal posters represent the general acceptance by the left on hostility toward Christians when such behavior against any other religious group would not be tolerated. So, yes, as reflected by the hostility here, the liberal party is definitely biased against Christians. And just like some white people have unconscious bias or may not be observant of racist behavior, you may not have noticed all of the hostility toward Christians or been offended by it (again, Dajo insulting Christians by saying Christian preachers like to get a blow job from gay men in an alley before Bible study or all of the mocking of our faith with stereotypical caricatures of Christians). So, your argument that you think it is exaggerated is as convincing to me as someone black would be convinced by a white person saying they don't think racism is that bad.

And the way you view the offensive liberal posters relative to the conservative posters you view as unacceptable shows how our political leanings influence how we view what should be objectively true. Do you not see the ridiculous internet memes from the left posters? How about the knee jerk "MAGAt", "snowflake" as the entirety of response to anything that does not correspond to the left platform? How about one of the posters I mentioned multiple times stating that the conservative posters like me were sexually abused as children, suggesting that being a victim of pedophilia is an insult? I honestly have not seen anything that despicable from any of the conservative posters. And so, if it is a choice between associating with those who make homophobic jokes and use being sexually abused as a minor as an insult while throwing out "MAGAt", RWNJ" etc as the only type of posts they make and associating with those who post conservative memes, I will choose the latter. Even though Bearister, B.A., and others mostly post memes, I don't consider them trolls for doing so. But I would love to hear about any of those conservative posters saying some of the vile things AunBear and others have written and have the posters here star those posts, and I will join you in rebuking them. The only person who even comes close is that idiot Bancroft poster that I have multiple times called out.

---

I think you're picking a bone here with me where there isn't one to be picked, and in the course of doing so, you've taken us off the course of the original conversation (but maybe that had run its course). To the extent that you want to interpret what I have previously said as me calling you an "acceptable conservative," I did so in the context of explaining why I find your brand of conservatism and general outlook to be a productive source or topic of conversation. The fact that I find certain other conservatives on this board objectionable and thus ignore them is completely independent of whether or not I find certain other liberals on this board equally objectionable and has nothing to do with my opinion of you. Even if I were to agree with every single thing you stated in your second paragraph, how exactly does that change the nature of anything you and I have gone back and forth on?

But to the original question I posed, it seems your answer is simply that because a handful of posters here have mocked elements of Christianity, therefore the whole of the Democratic Party is openly hostile to Christianity and you are therefore justified in interpreting Democratic social platforms through that lens. Correct me if there is something beyond that in your answer, because I'm sure you can immediately see how silly it is to extrapolate to that level.

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Couple of things. I am not exaggerating the hostility. Would you say the same thing if someone wrote about a Jewish person giving a blowjob before going to a temple and using terms like nutting, etc and having people star that post as OK? Well, that is what Dajo did (and the moderators has to delete and lock) and everyone here who is a Democrat thought that was OK. How about if someone put stereotypical and bigoted caricature of someone Jewish or Muslim? Would you expect that to be handled here? That is typical of the liberals. And no one thinks twice about it. And so you saying I am exaggerating is like some conservative white posters saying the black community is exaggerating racism faced by blacks. Hard to take you seriously on this.

And I do find offensive that you view me as an acceptable conservative unlike other conservatives here. Why are the fellow conservative posters not acceptable but tools like Aunbear, Calpoly and Dajoe acceptable? Why are you not sayings out and I are not off the reservation like many others here?

So, while we will continue to be civil, yes, we are both very biased to our own preconceptions.

---

Not sure where to begin here. I've never spoken up against individual slurs by anyone here and you likely won't see me do so anytime in the near future. Part of that is because until very recently, I've been perfectly content over the years to merely read the discussions here. Another part of that is that I make use of the 'Ignore' feature when I find someone particularly objectionable. Call it apathy, call it cowardice, call it whatever you want, but I am more than happy to let the board regulars be the ones to take out the trash when appropriate.

Irrespective of my explanation above, I'm left to wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I was challenging your specific, oft-repeated statement that Democrats are "openly hostile" to Christianity. Not a single part of your response addressed that query; in fact, you didn't mention Christianity even a single time, instead seguing into a discussion of Jewish and Muslim slurs?

Regarding your offense at me apparently referring to you as an "acceptable conservative," I apologize if that came off patronizing. If anything, I was attempting to highlight why I've engaged repeatedly in discussion with you despite my proclivity to lurk this board otherwise. But even assuming your premise for just a second, those posters you named have absolutely nothing on several of the most prolific conservative posters here except for personal animus with you. Sounds like you might feel differently, but posting stupid picture memes from the far-right depths of the internet, citing to blatantly far-right websites, and openly trolling with knowingly false and inflammatory far-right statements is not something you can simply replace with "far-left" and be an accurate depiction of any single other poster here. I suspect many here would know within one or two guesses exactly whom I am talking about as well. As I've already said, I consider you multiple levels above them, but if you wish to group yourself with them and close off this discussion, then I am sorry to hear that and will drop things here.

---

I definitely am not accusing you of using any of the slurs. What I am suggesting is that the open hostility here against Christianity by the liberal posters, with tacit or open approval of the other liberal posters represent the general acceptance by the left on hostility toward Christians when such behavior against any other religious group would not be tolerated. So, yes, as reflected by the hostility here, the liberal party is definitely biased against Christians. And just like some white people have unconscious bias or may not be observant of racist behavior, you may not have noticed all of the hostility toward Christians or been offended by it (again, Dajo insulting Christians by saying Christian preachers like to get a blow job from gay men in an alley before Bible study or all of the mocking of our faith with stereotypical caricatures of Christians). So, your argument that you think it is exaggerated is as convincing to me as someone black would be convinced by a white person saying they don't think racism is that bad.

And the way you view the offensive liberal posters relative to the conservative posters you view as unacceptable shows how our political leanings influence how we view what should be objectively true. Do you not see the ridiculous internet memes from the left posters? How about the knee jerk "MAGAt", "snowflake" as the entirety of response to anything that does not correspond to the left platform? How about one of the posters I mentioned multiple times stating that the conservative posters like me were sexually abused as children, suggesting that being a victim of pedophilia is an insult? I honestly have not seen anything that despicable from any of the conservative posters. And so, if it is a choice between associating with those who make homophobic jokes and use being sexually abused as a minor as an insult while throwing out "MAGAt", RWNJ" etc as the only type of posts they make and associating with those who post conservative memes, I will choose the latter. Even though Bearister, B.A., and others mostly post memes, I don't consider them trolls for doing so. But I would love to hear about any of those conservative posters saying some of the vile things AunBear and others have written and have the posters here star those posts, and I will join you in rebuking them. The only person who even comes close is that idiot Bancroft poster that I have multiple times called out.

---

I think you're picking a bone here with me where there isn't one to be picked, and in the course of doing so, you've taken us off the course of the original conversation (but maybe that had run its course). To the extent that you want to interpret what I have previously said as me calling you an "acceptable conservative," I did so in the context of explaining why I find your brand of conservatism and general outlook to be a productive source or topic of conversation. The fact that I find certain other conservatives on this board objectionable and thus ignore them is completely independent of whether or not I find certain other liberals on this board equally objectionable and has nothing to do with my opinion of you. Even if I were to agree with every single thing you stated in your second paragraph, how exactly does that change the nature of anything you and I have gone back and forth on?

But to the original question I posed, it seems your answer is simply that because a handful of posters here have mocked elements of Christianity, therefore the whole of the Democratic Party is openly hostile to Christianity and you are therefore justified in interpreting Democratic social platforms through that lens. Correct me if there is something beyond that in your answer, because I'm sure you can immediately see how silly it is to extrapolate to that level.

---

I don't have a bone to pick with you. I am stating that you and I disagree on who the most objectionable posters are.

On the Democratic party's hostility toward Christians, I was using this board as a sample of the liberal's hostility towards Christianity in a real life situation. You seem surprised by the division between Christians and Democrats. It seems pretty obvious, but we have different experiences:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/democrats-have-a-religion-problem/510761/

Part of the Democrat's platform (painting Christians with a broad brush as bigots):

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of "religious liberty," to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities

https://theweek.com/articles/873957/democrats-religion-conundrum

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Couple of things. I am not exaggerating the hostility. Would you say the same thing if someone wrote about a Jewish person giving a blowjob before going to a temple and using terms like nutting, etc and having people star that post as OK? Well, that is what Dajo did (and the moderators has to delete and lock) and everyone here who is a Democrat thought that was OK. How about if someone put stereotypical and bigoted caricature of someone Jewish or Muslim? Would you expect that to be handled here? That is typical of the liberals. And no one thinks twice about it. And so you saying I am exaggerating is like some conservative white posters saying the black community is exaggerating racism faced by blacks. Hard to take you seriously on this.

And I do find offensive that you view me as an acceptable conservative unlike other conservatives here. Why are the fellow conservative posters not acceptable but tools like Aunbear, Calpoly and Dajoe acceptable? Why are you not sayings out and I are not off the reservation like many others here?

So, while we will continue to be civil, yes, we are both very biased to our own preconceptions.

---

Not sure where to begin here. I've never spoken up against individual slurs by anyone here and you likely won't see me do so anytime in the near future. Part of that is because until very recently, I've been perfectly content over the years to merely read the discussions here. Another part of that is that I make use of the 'Ignore' feature when I find someone particularly objectionable. Call it apathy, call it cowardice, call it whatever you want, but I am more than happy to let the board regulars be the ones to take out the trash when appropriate.

Irrespective of my explanation above, I'm left to wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I was challenging your specific, oft-repeated statement that Democrats are "openly hostile" to Christianity. Not a single part of your response addressed that query; in fact, you didn't mention Christianity even a single time, instead seguing into a discussion of Jewish and Muslim slurs?

Regarding your offense at me apparently referring to you as an "acceptable conservative," I apologize if that came off patronizing. If anything, I was attempting to highlight why I've engaged repeatedly in discussion with you despite my proclivity to lurk this board otherwise. But even assuming your premise for just a second, those posters you named have absolutely nothing on several of the most prolific conservative posters here except for personal animus with you. Sounds like you might feel differently, but posting stupid picture memes from the far-right depths of the internet, citing to blatantly far-right websites, and openly trolling with knowingly false and inflammatory far-right statements is not something you can simply replace with "far-left" and be an accurate depiction of any single other poster here. I suspect many here would know within one or two guesses exactly whom I am talking about as well. As I've already said, I consider you multiple levels above them, but if you wish to group yourself with them and close off this discussion, then I am sorry to hear that and will drop things here.

---

I definitely am not accusing you of using any of the slurs. What I am suggesting is that the open hostility here against Christianity by the liberal posters, with tacit or open approval of the other liberal posters represent the general acceptance by the left on hostility toward Christians when such behavior against any other religious group would not be tolerated. So, yes, as reflected by the hostility here, the liberal party is definitely biased against Christians. And just like some white people have unconscious bias or may not be observant of racist behavior, you may not have noticed all of the hostility toward Christians or been offended by it (again, Dajo insulting Christians by saying Christian preachers like to get a blow job from gay men in an alley before Bible study or all of the mocking of our faith with stereotypical caricatures of Christians). So, your argument that you think it is exaggerated is as convincing to me as someone black would be convinced by a white person saying they don't think racism is that bad.

And the way you view the offensive liberal posters relative to the conservative posters you view as unacceptable shows how our political leanings influence how we view what should be objectively true. Do you not see the ridiculous internet memes from the left posters? How about the knee jerk "MAGAt", "snowflake" as the entirety of response to anything that does not correspond to the left platform? How about one of the posters I mentioned multiple times stating that the conservative posters like me were sexually abused as children, suggesting that being a victim of pedophilia is an insult? I honestly have not seen anything that despicable from any of the conservative posters. And so, if it is a choice between associating with those who make homophobic jokes and use being sexually abused as a minor as an insult while throwing out "MAGAt", RWNJ" etc as the only type of posts they make and associating with those who post conservative memes, I will choose the latter. Even though Bearister, B.A., and others mostly post memes, I don't consider them trolls for doing so. But I would love to hear about any of those conservative posters saying some of the vile things AunBear and others have written and have the posters here star those posts, and I will join you in rebuking them. The only person who even comes close is that idiot Bancroft poster that I have multiple times called out.

---

I think you're picking a bone here with me where there isn't one to be picked, and in the course of doing so, you've taken us off the course of the original conversation (but maybe that had run its course). To the extent that you want to interpret what I have previously said as me calling you an "acceptable conservative," I did so in the context of explaining why I find your brand of conservatism and general outlook to be a productive source or topic of conversation. The fact that I find certain other conservatives on this board objectionable and thus ignore them is completely independent of whether or not I find certain other liberals on this board equally objectionable and has nothing to do with my opinion of you. Even if I were to agree with every single thing you stated in your second paragraph, how exactly does that change the nature of anything you and I have gone back and forth on?

But to the original question I posed, it seems your answer is simply that because a handful of posters here have mocked elements of Christianity, therefore the whole of the Democratic Party is openly hostile to Christianity and you are therefore justified in interpreting Democratic social platforms through that lens. Correct me if there is something beyond that in your answer, because I'm sure you can immediately see how silly it is to extrapolate to that level.

---

I don't have a bone to pick with you. I am stating that you and I disagree on who the most objectionable posters are.

On the Democratic party's hostility toward Christians, I was using this board as a sample of the liberal's hostility towards Christianity in a real life situation. You seem surprised by the division between Christians and Democrats. It seems pretty obvious, but we have different experiences:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/democrats-have-a-religion-problem/510761/

Part of the Democrat's platform (painting Christians with a broad brush as bigots):

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of "religious liberty," to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities

https://theweek.com/articles/873957/democrats-religion-conundrum

---

Thanks for those articles. I have a better perspective on your "Democrats are hostile to Christians" approach now. While I do respect why you've come to that position, I still think it is an overstatement because of two main takeaways from those articles. First, both articles seem to predominantly equate Christianity with white evangelicals. As we surely both recognize, evangelicals are among the most conservative Christians when it comes to interpreting religious dogma. In my view, this means that Democrats are already at a huge disadvantage with this particular subset of the population and thus haven't found it a particularly efficient use of resources to try to pull any significant portion of this subset to their side. I won't disagree if you want to say that a wholesale abandonment of this part of the population is bad optics at best, but I don't think it is so cynical as to say that the Democratic party hates Christians (or in this case, white evangelicals).

Second, the characterization of evangelicals seems to invariably come back to the issue of abortion. On that, the fundamental question doesn't really leave any room for nuance: is a fetus a living, sentient being or not? For better or worse, more and more Christians - or again, white evangelicals to be more accurate - seem to have made this their Rubicon; if the Democratic party can't agree that abortion is morally wrong, then there's no way they can vote for a Democrat. This goes back to whether or not Democrats consider it an efficient use of resources to appeal to people who've set that as their demarcation line. Again, I don't think this equates to open hostility or hate. But to each his own in this case.

dajo9 said:

---

Todd Ingram said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Todd Ingram said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

I believe that you are what you do. It's no good to say the party with a "conservative" political platform hasn't been acting conservatively. Every self described conservative I know voted for Reagan, GWB, Romney, and some Trump. All these self-described conservative politicians have supported huge deficits and have had huge support from conservatives. Conservatism means huge fiscal deficits. You are what you do.

---

Conservatism does not mean huge fiscal deficits.

You continue to put your stupidity on display when you say stupid shyt like this.

---

Which conservative President in our lifetime lowered the deficit?

---

Do you even understand how the budget is passed? Do you know anything at all about the world you live in?

---

Ok, explain to me why deficits exploded during the Reagan, GWB, and Trump Presidencies and why they have no personal responsibility for them.

---

https://www.usa.gov/budget

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Couple of things. I am not exaggerating the hostility. Would you say the same thing if someone wrote about a Jewish person giving a blowjob before going to a temple and using terms like nutting, etc and having people star that post as OK? Well, that is what Dajo did (and the moderators has to delete and lock) and everyone here who is a Democrat thought that was OK. How about if someone put stereotypical and bigoted caricature of someone Jewish or Muslim? Would you expect that to be handled here? That is typical of the liberals. And no one thinks twice about it. And so you saying I am exaggerating is like some conservative white posters saying the black community is exaggerating racism faced by blacks. Hard to take you seriously on this.

And I do find offensive that you view me as an acceptable conservative unlike other conservatives here. Why are the fellow conservative posters not acceptable but tools like Aunbear, Calpoly and Dajoe acceptable? Why are you not sayings out and I are not off the reservation like many others here?

So, while we will continue to be civil, yes, we are both very biased to our own preconceptions.

---

Not sure where to begin here. I've never spoken up against individual slurs by anyone here and you likely won't see me do so anytime in the near future. Part of that is because until very recently, I've been perfectly content over the years to merely read the discussions here. Another part of that is that I make use of the 'Ignore' feature when I find someone particularly objectionable. Call it apathy, call it cowardice, call it whatever you want, but I am more than happy to let the board regulars be the ones to take out the trash when appropriate.

Irrespective of my explanation above, I'm left to wonder if you are confusing me with someone else. I was challenging your specific, oft-repeated statement that Democrats are "openly hostile" to Christianity. Not a single part of your response addressed that query; in fact, you didn't mention Christianity even a single time, instead seguing into a discussion of Jewish and Muslim slurs?

Regarding your offense at me apparently referring to you as an "acceptable conservative," I apologize if that came off patronizing. If anything, I was attempting to highlight why I've engaged repeatedly in discussion with you despite my proclivity to lurk this board otherwise. But even assuming your premise for just a second, those posters you named have absolutely nothing on several of the most prolific conservative posters here except for personal animus with you. Sounds like you might feel differently, but posting stupid picture memes from the far-right depths of the internet, citing to blatantly far-right websites, and openly trolling with knowingly false and inflammatory far-right statements is not something you can simply replace with "far-left" and be an accurate depiction of any single other poster here. I suspect many here would know within one or two guesses exactly whom I am talking about as well. As I've already said, I consider you multiple levels above them, but if you wish to group yourself with them and close off this discussion, then I am sorry to hear that and will drop things here.

---

I definitely am not accusing you of using any of the slurs. What I am suggesting is that the open hostility here against Christianity by the liberal posters, with tacit or open approval of the other liberal posters represent the general acceptance by the left on hostility toward Christians when such behavior against any other religious group would not be tolerated. So, yes, as reflected by the hostility here, the liberal party is definitely biased against Christians. And just like some white people have unconscious bias or may not be observant of racist behavior, you may not have noticed all of the hostility toward Christians or been offended by it (again, Dajo insulting Christians by saying Christian preachers like to get a blow job from gay men in an alley before Bible study or all of the mocking of our faith with stereotypical caricatures of Christians). So, your argument that you think it is exaggerated is as convincing to me as someone black would be convinced by a white person saying they don't think racism is that bad.

And the way you view the offensive liberal posters relative to the conservative posters you view as unacceptable shows how our political leanings influence how we view what should be objectively true. Do you not see the ridiculous internet memes from the left posters? How about the knee jerk "MAGAt", "snowflake" as the entirety of response to anything that does not correspond to the left platform? How about one of the posters I mentioned multiple times stating that the conservative posters like me were sexually abused as children, suggesting that being a victim of pedophilia is an insult? I honestly have not seen anything that despicable from any of the conservative posters. And so, if it is a choice between associating with those who make homophobic jokes and use being sexually abused as a minor as an insult while throwing out "MAGAt", RWNJ" etc as the only type of posts they make and associating with those who post conservative memes, I will choose the latter. Even though Bearister, B.A., and others mostly post memes, I don't consider them trolls for doing so. But I would love to hear about any of those conservative posters saying some of the vile things AunBear and others have written and have the posters here star those posts, and I will join you in rebuking them. The only person who even comes close is that idiot Bancroft poster that I have multiple times called out.

---

I think you're picking a bone here with me where there isn't one to be picked, and in the course of doing so, you've taken us off the course of the original conversation (but maybe that had run its course). To the extent that you want to interpret what I have previously said as me calling you an "acceptable conservative," I did so in the context of explaining why I find your brand of conservatism and general outlook to be a productive source or topic of conversation. The fact that I find certain other conservatives on this board objectionable and thus ignore them is completely independent of whether or not I find certain other liberals on this board equally objectionable and has nothing to do with my opinion of you. Even if I were to agree with every single thing you stated in your second paragraph, how exactly does that change the nature of anything you and I have gone back and forth on?

But to the original question I posed, it seems your answer is simply that because a handful of posters here have mocked elements of Christianity, therefore the whole of the Democratic Party is openly hostile to Christianity and you are therefore justified in interpreting Democratic social platforms through that lens. Correct me if there is something beyond that in your answer, because I'm sure you can immediately see how silly it is to extrapolate to that level.

---

I don't have a bone to pick with you. I am stating that you and I disagree on who the most objectionable posters are.

On the Democratic party's hostility toward Christians, I was using this board as a sample of the liberal's hostility towards Christianity in a real life situation. You seem surprised by the division between Christians and Democrats. It seems pretty obvious, but we have different experiences:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/democrats-have-a-religion-problem/510761/

Part of the Democrat's platform (painting Christians with a broad brush as bigots):

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of "religious liberty," to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities

https://theweek.com/articles/873957/democrats-religion-conundrum

---

Thanks for those articles. I have a better perspective on your "Democrats are hostile to Christians" approach now. While I do respect why you've come to that position, I still think it is an overstatement because of two main takeaways from those articles. First, both articles seem to predominantly equate Christianity with white evangelicals. As we surely both recognize, evangelicals are among the most conservative Christians when it comes to interpreting religious dogma. In my view, this means that Democrats are already at a huge disadvantage with this particular subset of the population and thus haven't found it a particularly efficient use of resources to try to pull any significant portion of this subset to their side. I won't disagree if you want to say that a wholesale abandonment of this part of the population is bad optics at best, but I don't think it is so cynical as to say that the Democratic party hates Christians (or in this case, white evangelicals).

Second, the characterization of evangelicals seems to invariably come back to the issue of abortion. On that, the fundamental question doesn't really leave any room for nuance: is a fetus a living, sentient being or not? For better or worse, more and more Christians - or again, white evangelicals to be more accurate - seem to have made this their Rubicon; if the Democratic party can't agree that abortion is morally wrong, then there's no way they can vote for a Democrat. This goes back to whether or not Democrats consider it an efficient use of resources to appeal to people who've set that as their demarcation line. Again, I don't think this equates to open hostility or hate. But to each his own in this case.

---

I think differentiating evangelicals (which includes Protestants, Baptists, Episcopal, and every other reformed theology) from Christianity overall is not really religiously literate. Yes, there are political difference between white evangelicals and black evangelicals, but not the faith or theology. And quite honestly, it is not the "whiteness" Democrats object to. It's the theology. Because opposing just white evangelicals for being white would be racist.

And there really isn't any room for interpretation on abortion from Christians. And the greatest objection comes from Catholics. And to deny that interpretation would be to deny the Bible, which wouldn't make one very Christian. But at least we have some basis for our belief. What is the other side's belief on when life starts other than convenience?

calbear93 said:

---

Part of the Democrat's platform (painting Christians with a broad brush as bigots):

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of "religious liberty," to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities

---

Is that wrong? When it comes to LGBT folks I think that's definitely true.

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Part of the Democrat's platform (painting Christians with a broad brush as bigots):

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of "religious liberty," to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities

---

Is that wrong? When it comes to LGBT folks I think that's definitely true.

---

I see. And you think the Quran and Torah have different teaching? And do think most Christians you meet on a day to day basis, including over 70% of the black community, are bigots against homosexuals? You do realize that substantial majority of the black community are evangelicals, right? So the Democrats are against most of the black community? You don't think that is a broad brush?

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Part of the Democrat's platform (painting Christians with a broad brush as bigots):

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of "religious liberty," to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities

---

Is that wrong? When it comes to LGBT folks I think that's definitely true.

---

I see. And you think the Quran and Torah have different teaching? And do think most Christians you meet on a day to day basis, including over 70% of the black community, are bigots against homosexuals? You do realize that substantial majority of the black community are evangelicals, right? So the Democrats are against most of the black community? You don't think that is a broad brush?

---

I think that in the United States the primary opposition to what is now recognized as a legal right (same-sex marriage) came from Christian religious organizations. Am I wrong?

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Part of the Democrat's platform (painting Christians with a broad brush as bigots):

Those most loudly claiming that morals, values, and patriotism must be defined by their particular religious views have used those religious views, with misplaced claims of "religious liberty," to justify public policy that has threatened the civil rights and liberties of many Americans, including but not limited to the LGBT community, women, and ethnic and religious/nonreligious minorities

---

Is that wrong? When it comes to LGBT folks I think that's definitely true.

---

I see. And you think the Quran and Torah have different teaching? And do think most Christians you meet on a day to day basis, including over 70% of the black community, are bigots against homosexuals? You do realize that substantial majority of the black community are evangelicals, right? So the Democrats are against most of the black community? You don't think that is a broad brush?

---

I think that in the United States the primary opposition to what is now recognized as a legal right (same-sex marriage) came from Christian religious organizations. Am I wrong?

---

Yes, extending the belief of what constitutes biblical marriage that is laid out in Islam, Mosaic laws, and the Bible. I think the failure to differentiate Christian marriage to civil marriage was stupid. There are many things that are legal that are not Biblical, including divorces, fornication, etc. that none of us can faithfully obey. And that is the heart of Christianity and why Trump is not a Christian if he thinks he never has to ask for forgiveness. We all fail and we all needed a savior to rescue was from our past and continuous sins. It is forgetting about justification and how we get it that led to the stupidity on trying to prevent legalizing gay marriages. Why not make illegal divorces? How about premarital sex? It was stupid and led by those who I think have more faith in their own influence and in law than in God. Sola fide.

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

Matthew Patel said:

---

JeffBear07 said:

---

3) Democrats come into power: attempt to fix the broken effects of both previous GOP leadership and longstanding structural flaws (e.g., Obama going out of his way to seek out compromise with the GOP in his first two years, implementing the ACA, setting new clean energy standards)

---

That there are 6 people who think that the Democratic Party is a force for good just goes to show how stupid those 6 people are. calbear93 has it right. Both parties are bad.

Minority groups understand this better than anyone.

---

I don't see things so black and white as you, nor do a great number of people who smarter and more observant than me. Just because the two parties haven't taken steps to the degree or at the speed that you believe or wish they had doesn't automatically mean that they don't actually want to get to a point of betterment. I've laid out my reasons for why I believe that Democrats don't go as far as they can or should in helping the underserved which don't have anything to do with not actually wanting to help. For that matter, there are plenty of Republicans even today who would probably go much further in helping people as well if they weren't so cowed into walking in lockstep with party leadership (again, thank Gingrich for introducing that concept 20-odd years ago).

---

I think where I disagree with you, as you may understand, is your your implication (or maybe it was just my incorrect inference) that those who promote conservative fiscal policy (if that even exists anymore) do not care about long-term interest of the country. In fact, I think those who are promoting conservative fiscal policy do care. It is easy and expedient to say, let's just spend and spend on the backs of the future generation. That seems to be the easy thing to do.

As for social wars, as I mentioned, most Americans want decent, moderate social policies and do not want significant changes. The extremes who don't care about others but their special interest groups are the ones who promote division, and I honestly am sick and tired of the social wars fought between the extremes on both sides.

---

I've been trying my best to distinguish between current GOP orthodoxy and conservatives such as yourself, because I get the sense that there are at least some issues on which you would agree generally with the direction that Democrats have tried to go. For instance, you just indicated that you would support a public option or single payer system when it comes to healthcare, presumably because you think that is in the best long-term interests of the country. But while conservative fiscal policy is fine in as a concept, it does heighten the importance of scrutinizing exactly what we are spending our money on, and on that front, I would argue that Republican priorities as a whole have not matched up with national long-term interests, especially when you consider how the theoretical savings have then been zeroed out or overtaken by tax cuts or increased spending elsewhere.

Regarding social wars, I suspect based on your past statements that you are talking about rhetoric directed at the so-called 1% and large company CEOs? Because I'd be surprised if you're referring to any number of more recent hot-button social policy issues such as police brutality/BLM, transgender rights, or gay marriage.

---

Yes. I am probably more liberal on social issues than most. And, while a Christian and pro-lifer, I think one of the worst things we did was insert ourselves in the political realm or ally with the Republican party. I understand why we did it since the Democratic party were so openly hostile to Christianity, but it was putting politics above God. I wish both parties would keep religion out of it, but both parties are just as guilty.

For example, I am fervently in favor of gay marriages, and was disappointed by Obama's initial refusal to support it. However, I am fully in support of those who do not want to partake in the ceremony for religious reasons. Just be decent to each other, and leave people the hell alone.

Same with transgender rights. However, when there is some ridiculously stupid takes such as allowing transgender athletes to compete with women or allowing non-unisex bathrooms to be used, then it's nonsense and inconsistent. Just make all bathrooms unisex and just make all sporting events co-ed. If you are going to differentiate, have it make sense and be consistent with the reason you are continuing to separate.

On BLM/brutality, of course I am in favor of police reform. It is when it is taken to the extreme, such as disbanding or defunding the police or excusing looting of small businesses, then I do get upset because I think that is wrong for the country. And I think it is stupid for the leaders of BLM to pollute the core message with argument for Marxism or bigotry against the Jewish community (or any other community).

So, I am more center left on most issues, but hate the stupidity of how these arguments go and how sanctimonious these cancel culture activist who think they are shielded because they tweet and promote ruining someone's life for a mistake pisses me off.

On the fiscal policy issue, it is a question of balancing what is the basic necessity of survival and what we should collectively (not just someone richer than me) fund (not borrow) as a nation to ensure that the basics are not deprived to anyone. I view food, basic housing, healthcare, rescue when there is a fire or a crime, and protection from undue foreign hostility or foreign action that destabilizes US or our allies as basic requirements. Beyond that, I think there should be a compelling argument for why something is a basic necessity and why I should fund it for someone else.

---

You are pro-fetus not pro-life.

Shootings And Gun Deaths Continue To Rise At Alarming Rate In Large U.S. Cities

Quote:

---

A review of crime statistics among the nation's 50 largest cities by the Wall Street Journal found that reported homicides were up 24% this year.

---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/08/02/shootings-and-gun-deaths-continue-to-rise-at-alarming-rate-in-large-us-cities/#1d4485d76f0f

Violence is a bipartisan issue but only one party wants to defund police.

calbear93 said:

---

Dajo insulting Christians by saying Christian preachers like to get a blow job from gay men in an alley before Bible study

---

This is a lie

dajo9 said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

Dajo insulting Christians by saying Christian preachers like to get a blow job from gay men in an alley before Bible study

---

This is a lie

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/96093/0#discussion

The moderators deleted your posts and locked the thread because of what you wrote but what you wrote is still quoted in my thread. Typical.